 |
| https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrILj3PKkR15QJWznaIZGGq5x8ld3MWzBVDEQJyUmVcxcgwbpZofbXz-aTtdqx4E8UABEcTKSD5YBds9tRgSim_pAuuspjdycqVau6MBzoW1y2SouM8rarULAFRyrbHy-Z4H5l4kV_FfA8/s1600/J%2526J.jpg |
Some claim that the minority should always give way to the wishes of the majority because they claim that this supports the theory of utilitarianism. This theory, proposed by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill, states that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, if more people in the society wish for a particular change in political affairs, for instance, the rest of the society should yield to their wishes, thereby making most in the society happy. Baldly put, this is like what was pointed out in our lecture --- a tyranny of the majority.
Democracy would fail without the majority rule. The "majority rule" is a decision rule that selects one of two alternatives, based on which has more than half the votes. This rule is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, which is a system adopted, in some form or another, by most governments today. Without the minority giving way to the wishes of the majority, democracy would simply fail, as decisions cannot be made. Also, many minority groups today would prefer to remain in silence as going against the majority may cost them their lives and their property. For instance, the minority Sunnis versus the majority Shiites in post-Saddam Iraq. Protests against the majority usually cause disruption to and instability in the society, and more often than not, worsen the situation.
 |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/libertymaniac/4993137659/ |
However, these arguments are weak because firstly, I feel that the theory of utilitarianism is flawed. Utilitarianism would allow for slavery and other such evil practices. If we are simply looking at what is best for the most people, 51% of the population could justify enslaving. This allows for a total disrespect of human rights. Therefore, the wishes of the majority may be detrimental to the society.
Democracy entails not just majority rule, but protection of minority rights. While it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority (again, tyranny of the majority). For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority therefore must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections --- speech, assembly, association and petition --- since otherwise, the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. The minority must therefore not give way if it is denied this right.
 |
| https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsxc7nVRS99nd6EpxZ-9Eqd7lE9KoJOiAyFKhkovxJXzz7jumy-T3rM911yWU8ISZ1nOjk2DuNWJ9X1KR3Ns5E9jTeLKYNMc-nbWsqJvvEtpBABJ525jmMcNv8d7OB8KFfM7VjX6mI6nPO/s200/I+want+my+democracy+back.jpg |
The cost is never too high if we are fighting for our beliefs. This could come in various forms; political views (opposition political leaders who are willing to risk imprisonment for airing their views); alternative lifestyles (homosexual marriages); religious principles (headscarf ban in French schools, minaret ban in Switzerland, restriction on the practice of their religion by Chinese Indonesians) and lastly, pride and integrity (Iran versus the US and her allies).
In addition, the minority should not give way to the wishes of the majority when human rights are violated. When injustice is suffered by the minorities in a particular country or society (Genocide and persecution of ethnic minority groups in strife-torn African states like Sudan, Somalia and Zimbabwe), these minorities should take action, either through appeals to NGOs, political discourse, or even uprisings to stop the violation.
 |
| Russia and China used their veto power to block U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to put pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. From: http://images.alarabiya.net/5b/b4/640x392_65480_227292.jpg |
That being said, it is rather comforting to know the existence of the UN Security Council "power of veto". It refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of th UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK and the US), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. Having this power suggests that the countries (minority) need not give in to the majority. Take for example, the US used the veto on 13 occasions (11 regarding the Middle East, one Bosnia, one in 1989 following its invasion of Panama).
In conclusion, the theory of utilitarianism oppressed the rights of the minority, promoting injustice and inequality in our societies. I strongly believe that the minority should never give way to the wishes of the majority. My doubts on Mill's claim that he is developing an utilitarian theory that protects individuals remain deep-seated in my belief that every individuals can only be protected when their basic rights are secured, not sacrificing the minority for the majority.
Your post strikes me as particularly insightful, because I have always been opposed to conformity and the notion that something is right just because it is what everyone else believes. In a democratic society, if the majority voted for something that harmed the minority, it could potentially pass and be accepted. People still have voted to ban homosexual marriage, and like we talked about in class, if someone who was gay wanted to ban heterosexual marriage, they could not, because they are in a minority and therefore have no power in that respect.
ReplyDeletePeople often times have told me “well, America should really do [something] because every other developed nation has already done it” which really irritates me, because every other country had a monarchy and would persecute someone for not practicing the state religion at one point, too. America was founded on the principle of going against what was usual and accepted, and became the greatest country in the world quickly due to its innovation and unique view of freedom and representative government. However, I am starting to doubt democracy as a fair promoter of freedom, because only some people (the majority) benefit from it. Doing what everyone else does only inhibits progress, and I completely agree with your stance that people should never stop standing up for what they believe in. I absolutely loved this post; it made me question our form of government as the best form, because I definitely feel the tyranny of the majority at times.
Have either of you spent any time looking into John Rawls or Robert Nozick? Both are political philosophers that produce their own theories in response to utilitarianism. Rawls is usually considered to be a pretty standard liberal democrat, while Nozick is sometimes considered to be the father of modern libertarians. I recommend both highly.
DeleteAs to whether or not democracy and our freedom is what made us the best country, have you thought about China? Their are problems there yes, but there are also problems here. And I would say a communist nation having the second strongest economy in the world at present is a pretty solid argument against democracy. But as Marx would point out, is the productivity of a nation what determines how good a country is? Or is it the equality of all?